Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Aforesaid reliefs are claimed by the plaintiff on the basis of averments that plaintiffs are Sunni Muslim and governed by Shariat Act. Plaintiffs claim that they are heirs of Shaikh Mohammad Jamalbhai, who was original owner of the suit property. It is stated that Shaikh Mohammad Jamalbhai was survived by his wife Ajubibi, who died in the year 1958; son Jamalbhai who died on 17.06.1973 and daughter Gulabibi who died on 15.06.1994. The plaintiffs claim that they are direct descendant of deceased Gulabibi daughter of Shaikh Mohammad Jamalbhai. According to plaintiff, Gulabibi was survived by her daughters viz. Subanbibi, who died on 16.07.2008, Rehamatbibi who died on 14.06.1996 and Mariyambibi who died on 31.08.2013. Plaintiff - Yasminabanu daughter of Mariyambibi along with her brothers has filed aforesaid suit. Husband of Mariyambibi expired on 17.09.1986. According to plaintiff, deceased Shaikh Mohammad Jamalbhai was owner and occupier of agricultural land of revenue survey no.70, 71,49,48 and 43 in the outskirts of Patan City precisely in village Sandesrapati (for short 'suit land'). Promulgation entry No.74 was mutated in revenue record. Since mutation entry of revenue survey no.43 was left out, in said promulgation entry, another revenue entry was mutated vide Revenue Entry No.689 and thereby land of survey no.43 was added in the parcel of land.

18.2. It is submitted by learned advocate Ms.Shah that RTS Case No.184 of 2015 was conducted between co-sharer Aminabi daughter of Jamalbhai and predecessors of the applicants, before Deputy Collector, whereby later on settlement deed dated 29.12.2014 was executed to confirm sale which was executed on 04.12.1975 which itself suggest that plaintiff's share exist in the said property and thus, plaintiff is entitled to claim such share. Reliance is placed on judgment in the case of Dharamsingh v/s. Premsigh [(2019) 3 SCC 530]; Badrinarayan Singh v/s. Bageshwari Prasad Dubey [1951 AIR (Pat) 274] and Kantibhai Ishvarbhai Patel v/s. Chandrakant Ishvarbhai Patel [2005 (3) GLR 211] to contend that if no dispute raised against revenue entry, it will not adversely affect the right of the plaintiff to challenge the said mutation entry at subsequent stage. It is also submitted that merely plaintiff has not challenged mutation entry on the ground of execution of sale deed, it would not debar from filing suit for partition.

Tone and tenure of the suit filed by plaintiff is matching with the observation and finding extracted herein above. Plaintiff's suit filed through power of attorney appears to be a sponsored litigation to cloud title of suit land.

37. Article 110 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides limitation to enforce right to share in joint family property and time beings to run when exclusion becomes known to the plaintiff. In the case on hand, plaintiff claims that Gulabibi has been denied her share and they being grand-daughters are entitled to claim their share in suit property. Gulabibi did not assert her share nor claimed that her share has been fraudulently excluded from joint property, in fact at no point of time, she questioned mutation entries in the name of her real brother i.e. Jamalbhai. Gulabibi even did not questioned or challenged mutation entry in favour of widow of deceased Jamalbhai. Gulabibi did not even challenge sale deed which took place in the year 1969 and subsequent sale deeds. The plaintiff thus cannot claim what Gulabibi did not claim. The plaintiff is silent on this aspect. The plaintiff filed suit to declare that sale deed executed since the year 1975 is not binding to her. Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides three years of limitation to obtain any other declaration and time beings to run when the right to sue first accrues. Article 59 of NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/52/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/04/2026 undefined Limitation Act, 1963 provides limitation of three years to cancel or set aside an instrument or decree or for the rescission of contract and time begins to run when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first become known to him.

28) According to above factual aspects, it can be estimated that on the death of deceased Rasulbhai Kajubhai, whereat, all the three plaintiffs were married, or family settlement took place between Baxanben and defendant No.1, by which, out of three, two agricultural lands fell in share of bai Baxan and one fell in share of defendant No.1 and such fact is appearing from mutation entries that took place wayback in the year 1961, not being objected till date by the plaintiffs. So, this estimation is substantiated and is presumed that the present plaintiffs have accepted the family settlement and therefore, they never think for filing of challenge to mutation entry till the filing of suit, which also ignited at the hand of Mr. Ahmedbhai Imambhai, said to have been relative of plaintiffs, for the purpose of getting money as the prices of suit property goes sky rocketing. So, there is no substance in the suit. The family settlement took NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/52/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/04/2026 undefined place on the death of Rasulbhai Kajubhai. The suit property fell in share of plaintiffs as well as defendant No.1. They encash them wayback by selling precisely 40 to 50 years ago. Now, plaintiffs came as to extort the money from defendant and the title owner of the suit property.